OSDL and the Free Standards Group will become The Linux Foundation

January 22, 2007 Leave a comment

From the press release:
The two leading consortia dedicated to the advancement of Linux – the Open Source Development Labs (OSDL) and the Free Standards Group (FSG) – today announced that they have signed an agreement to merge and form The Linux Foundation. The new organization accelerates the growth of Linux by providing a comprehensive set of services to compete effectively with closed platforms.
Founding platinum members of the Linux Foundation include Fujitsu, Hitachi, HP, IBM, Intel, NEC, Novell, and Oracle. Jim Zemlin, former executive director of the Free Standards Group, leads The Linux Foundation. Other members of the new organization include every major company in the Linux industry, including Red Hat, as well as numerous community groups, universities and industry end users.
“Computing is entering a world dominated by two platforms: Linux and Windows. While being managed under one roof has given Windows some consistency, Linux offers freedom of choice, customization and flexibility without forcing customers into vendor lock-in,” said Zemlin. “The Linux Foundation helps in the next stage of Linux growth by organizing the diverse companies and constituencies of the Linux ecosystem to promote, protect, and standardize Linux.”
The Linux Foundation, which continues to sponsor the work of Linux creator Linus Torvalds, employs a shared resources strategy – much like open source development itself – to collaborate on platform development while enhancing the Linux market for end users, the community, developers and industry.
The FSG and the OSDL have worked together on a variety of projects in the past. While their areas of focus have been different, they both have the same general goals and ideals. They also previously had to compete with each other for membership and resources. The joining of the two companies should give the new entity more resources, less overhead and duplication of effort and increased market influence. The only downside I see is that previously the “standards group” was a separate entity that didn't do a ton in the way of general advocacy or development. That independence is now gone, but it seems like a very small price to pay and managed correctly I don't see it as any problem at all. The New York Times article contained some verbiage that worried me a bit:
And the mission of the new organization is help Linux, the leading example of the open-source model of software development, to compete more effectively against Microsoft, the world’s largest software company.
Why did that worry me? Microsoft shouldn't really me our main focus in my opinion. Sure, we should learn from what they do well and be aware of what they are doing, but improving Linux should be the main goal. Luckily, that sentence seems to be the interpretation of the NYT author. Outside a quote in the press release, the word Microsoft is almost no where to be found on the actual Linux Foundation site (although there is a mention of “Successful proprietary software companies”, a generalization that I really like) and the wording of everything is in line with what I would expect of an entity focused on improving Linux and not battling a specific company. While on the topic of the site, it's a great mix of MediaWiki and WordPress that they've brought together very nicely.
A quick glance at the people involved here and it's clear that this group should be able to pick up some traction and make some demonstrable differences fairly quickly. They will also continue to employee developers such as Linus and Andrew. I'd encourage them to also try to work in community participation. I offered my support and the support of LQ to OSDL in the past. After some initial talks nothing every came of it – they just didn't have a spot for community participants. I hope to see that change with the new group. That issue aside, welcome to the party TLF; best wishes and good luck!
–jeremy
, , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

The Contradictory Nature of OOXML II

January 21, 2007 Leave a comment

A quick follow up to this post. Stephen Walli, an ex-Microsoftie (via acquisition) whom I've had the pleasure of having a few drinks with, makes some interesting observations about the current ODF/OOXML situation. From his blog post:
I'm going to take a slightly different view here. ECMA has already approved the specification. One can imagine that the Microsoft marketing and standards engines are in full gear, and Microsoft execs, Office spokespeople, and field account execs are faithfully espousing:
* “Microsoft Office 2007 is standards compliant. ECMA International is a recognized international standards organization, with participation from IBM, HP, Intel, Adobe, and dozens of other companies.” [Subtext: It must be a good standard for all our partners and competitors to have passed it in a fair-minded international standards process.]
* “Indeed, ECMA International has submitted the standard to ISO for fast track approval as an international standard, and the process will complete in 2007.” [Subtext: It's so good, that they have recommended it for FAST track at the world's premier standards body.]
I would be surprised if Microsoft's Massachusetts team isn't already lobbying to have the new “standard” included in the ITD reference architecture alongside ODF. Regardless of the merit of ISO accepting the document, however, buyers will be staring the nasty rhetorical beast in the teeth. So what is a procuring organization to do?
He then outlines a certification process plan that I really think would serve ODF well. Hopefully something along these lines happen soon. Time is certainly of the essence here. He concludes with something similar to what I said in my previous post:
“Standards” with only one implementation aren't. The buying side of the marketplace has always recognized this and chosen the standard with multiple implementations over the specification with only a single implementation. The ODF world has the ability to demonstrate this message in a way that meets the needs of customers, and the demonstration through a branded certification is much more powerful than unaligned vendor rhetoric.
Absolutely spot on. The days of this kind of thing being accepted are thankfully coming to an end. Many companies and institutions have had to learn the hard way, but they are learning.
–jeremy
, , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

The Contradictory Nature of OOXML

January 21, 2007 Leave a comment

Andy Updegrove continues his excellent coverage of the OOXML standards approval process. From this post:
Regular readers will be aware that OOXML, the Microsoft Office XML-based formats adopted by Ecma, are now in the adoption queue at ISO/IEC. Ecma is a “Class A Liaison” partner with ISO/IEC, which permits it to use the same Fast Track process that national standards bodies use. That process takes six months – the same amount of time that the PAS process takes (the route used by OASIS to submit ODF to ISO/IEC) – but has two steps rather than one, although the practical result is much the same.
During the first one-month step, any member may submit “contradictions,” which, loosely defined, means aspects in which a proposed standard conflicts with already adopted ISO/IEC standards and Directives. Those contradictions must then be “resolved” (which does not necessarily mean eliminated), and these resolutions are then presented back to the members during the second stage to consider as part of the voting package. During this second, five-month step, other objections, questions and comments can be offered by members. (For more detail on the rules relating to contradictions and what can be raised during this phase, see the excellent writeup at the OpenDocument Fellowship site.)
While the unprecedented size of OOXML (over 6,000 pages) has made performing a detailed review a daunting task, more and more contradictions are being found by those that are slogging their way through on this very tight timeframe. Here is a sampling of those that people have brought to my attention:
He goes on to detail some of the upcoming contradictions that will be submitted. You should read the full post, but they include items such as reliance on the Windows platform, necessitating the implementation of undocumented Word bugs and reliance on documentation not included in the 6,000+ page draft. In the end, I very much agree with this statement: Other contradictions would seem to be impossible to resolve given the nature of OOXML itself, the stated purpose of which is to describe a single vendor's product – bugs, rats and all. The format is not a community developed standard that is meant to describe an office document format, it's basically “how MS Office works”… including bugs… without some needed information. That's not a problem for Microsoft given that their implementation is already done. It seems doubtful that even Microsoft given this document could write a fully compliant application. That means no one else even stands a chance. If this is passed, Microsoft will be able to keep Government contracts (which are increasing requiring an Open and standard document format) and also get good PR. All the while the standard almost certainly won't be implemented fully by any other product. Not exactly how standards are supposed to work.
–jeremy
, , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

Flash 9 Final for Linux (and an odd EULA) follow up

January 20, 2007 Leave a comment

Looks like my post about the Flash 9 EULA has sparked some discussion on John Dowdell's Blog (he's an Adobe employee). While I'd agree with the comments on his blog about “use” vs. “distribution”, it's great to see an employee participating in the discussion in an open and transparent manner. If the intent of the license is what John thinks it is, the wording really should be changed. I could absolutely see the reason for not allowing distribution, it's the “use” bit that I found surprising. As for the “restrictive commenting practices” – to be honest I really don't like the software that currently runs this blog. It's being moved to WordPress as soon as 2.1 is out.
–jeremy
, , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Open Source

Alan Cox Files DRM related Patent

January 19, 2007 Leave a comment

I've seen quite a bit of buzz about the patent application recently filed by Alan Cox. Here's the summary of the patent:
The present invention provides a technique for preventing the unauthorized use of a computer application, operating system, or other program without causing the loss of any information or data. Specifically, the technique of the present invention monitors a computer program for use that is not in compliance with acceptable terms. These terms may be defined, for example, through the use of a license agreement between the computer program provider and the user. When unauthorized use of the computer program is detected, any information and data is saved and the computer program and/or a portion of the computer system is disabled. The specifics concerning data that is saved may be determined, for example, by the computer program vendor or the user upon installation of the computer program. Similarly, a conventional “suspend to disc” operation may be utilized. The suspension of the computer program and/or a portion of the system may be maintained for as long as the violation exists, thereby permitting the user to, for example, renew any expired license terms. Once compliance has been reestablished, suspension of the computer program and/or a portion of the system is terminated and activities resumed. In situations where compliance is not reestablished, the data may be transferred to the user.
My interpretation is that it's a way for DRM to save data in the case of non-compliance, or to suspend the program until compliance is reached. Some seem to think this indicates Red Hat will go after Microsoft after Vista is mainstream. I can't conceivable see that to be the case. Issues such as prior art aside, that seems unlikely to me for two reasons. First, it's way outside the current operating parameters of Red Hat. They're not the kind of company I see going on a patent offensive. They get that software patents are inherently broken. Next, they can't at this point in their lifetime (young, small and growing rapidly with a sustainable business model) want to get into a legal battle with Microsoft, who has piles of cash and a legion of battle tested lawyers. So why the patent application? I'd say it's part of a plan that they've been building on for about two years now. The systematic buildup of strategic defensive patents, with the goal of amassing enough defensives to avoid being the target of a patent related suit. With Ballmer making thinly veiled threats, what choice do they really have. While they know the system is broken, that doesn't mean they don't have to play the game.
–jeremy

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source, Red Hat

MySQL Stats

January 17, 2007 Leave a comment

I just logged into the LQ MySQL server to get some statistics. I have a couple ideas for some optimizations and wanted to get a baseline on things. I fired up mytop and got the following:
Queries Total: 1,033,746,636 Avg/Sec: 112.80 Now/Sec: 119.93 Slow: 667
Cache Hits : 478,453,845 Avg/Sec: 52.21 Now/Sec: 56.15 Ratio: 46.28%
Not too shabby – one billion queries since the last MySQL restart. Almost all of the “Slow” queries are either me doing maintenance (some of which just simply use long queries) or queries going on during our snapshots (which I plan to move to the slave soon). I think we have a good handle on the current LQ growth, which continues to be fantastic. Performance is important, but we're also adding some interesting features in the near future. Stay tuned.
–jeremy

Filed under Linux, LinuxQuestions.org, Main Page, MySQL, Open Source

Flash 9 Final for Linux (and an odd EULA)

January 17, 2007 Leave a comment

A quick follow up to this discussion, it looks like Flash 9 Final for Linux has been released. Kudos to the Adobe team. I know some don't like flash (which I think is more indicative of the abuses in implementation such as horrific seizure inducing ads than anything else) but these days many sites just don't function well without it. There is already enough discussion going around about Flash not being Open Source, so I won't add to that. I do have a different comment though. Has anyone read the EULA on Flash? The following stuck me as extremely odd:
3.1 Web Player Prohibited Devices. You may not Use any Web Player on any non-PC device or with any embedded or device version of any operating system. For the avoidance of doubt, and by example only, you may not use a Web Player on any (a) mobile devices, set top boxes (STB), handhelds, phones, web pads, tablets and Tablet PCs that are not running Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, game consoles, TVs, DVD players, media centers (excluding Windows XP Media Center Edition and its successors), electronic billboards or other digital signage, internet appliances or other internet-connected devices, PDAs, medical devices, ATMs, telematic devices, gaming machines, home automation systems, kiosks, remote control devices, or any other consumer electronics device, (b) operator-based mobile, cable, satellite, or television systems or (c) other closed system devices.
(Full version here.) Does it seem strange to anyone that a format that relies 100% on being ubiquitous has such arcane arbitrary limitations? What could the possible benefits of this be to Adobe? If they don't get flash going on mobile (never mind specifically disallowing it) they are in trouble. Where the …and Tablet PCs that are not running Windows XP Tablet PC Edition came from is also beyond me. So if I purchase an IBM tablet and put Linux on it, I'm not legally allowed to run Flash? That's asinine.
–jeremy
, , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

World’s Highest Linux Distribution

January 17, 2007 Leave a comment

It's amazing where you end up running into Linux these days :) It's a true testament to Linux and Open Source that the same OS that powers many of the most powerful computers in the world is also the one that keeps you entertained in an embedded system mid-flight. BTW, congratulation to Chris on his recent wedding.
–jeremy

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Open Source

Fluendo makes proprietary codecs available to Linux users

January 16, 2007 Leave a comment

From the release:
In response to the growing demand for proprietary multimedia codecs on the open-source Linux platform, multimedia software development company Fluendo has released GStreamer codec plugins that provide native support for a variety of proprietary media formats. Available from Fluendo's web shop, several of the plugins facilitate encoding as well as playback. In order to provide these codecs without risking legal conflict, Fluendo has properly licensed the relevant patents on the various formats from their respective holders.
Currently, many Linux video applications facilitate Windows Media video playback using Windows DLL files and Wine, which provides suboptimal performance, particularly with streaming video. Additionally, proprietary codec support in many current open source media players potentially constitutes patent infringement. Fluendo's codecs could potentially provide better integration for streaming Windows Media playback in Linux web browsers as well as through GStreamer-based desktop applications like Totem. GStreamer, developed in part by Fluendo, is an increasingly popular open source multimedia editing and playback framework designed primarily for use on open source operating systems. “We have had these codecs in development for quite some time, to ensure they are of the highest quality possible and that all legal aspects are properly covered,” says Fluendo cofounder Pascal Pegaz, “By offering this drop-in solution we hope to increase the competitiveness of the GNU/Linux and Solaris platforms.”
Developer Christian Schaller also comments on his blog and elsewhere adds:
I see a lot of people confused about why we are releasing these codecs when there are things like the open source ffmpeg codecs etc. Our goal is not to provide the community with codecs which there is absolutely no support for already as that would be foolish. Our goal is to provide a 100% legal option which I know a lot of companies who have or want to deploy linux desktops have been looking for. These companies like open source, but they also have policies in place which hinders them from deploying solutions which have clear patent issues hanging over them in their country of operations. This is unfortunately the case with most multimedia codecs and even though we have spent a lot on resources on Xiph codecs here at Fluendo and are now working with BBC on Dirac there is still some way to go before the need for non-free codecs are gone.
So for those in a situation where they can freely use gst-ffmpeg and similar options, more power to you! For those who the lack of licensed codecs has been a hindrance or problem for adopting Linux (or Solaris) desktops at your company or institution or even private use, then we hope our plugins will be a good solution.
A few comments. I definitely agree that the current state of Linux multimedia is not acceptable long term. A quick blog search will bring up a number of posts on this topic. While part of the argument comes down to the “what do we want to give up” meme that I've consistently repeated recently, I'll approach this from a different angle for now. While I wish Fluendo a ton of luck on this endeavor and appreciate all the work they've done on GStreamer (which has come a long way), I'd be surprised if this is a significant success unless they get some OEM distribution uptake. Now, obviously that can't currently come in the gratis community releases, but that's fine – people are willing to pay for a working OS. Linspire has already gone this route and supports almost everything (from mp3 to wmv) right out of the box. While I've seen good reviews, I've not tried the product myself and haven't heard how successful commercially it's been. With an integrated solutions already available, I'm not sure people will be willing to spend $30 for a completely separated non-integrated product. The average user wants things to “just work”, and do so out of the box. So will distribution vendors come aboard? That remains to be seen. Like it or not at the main stream level we need to somehow deal with non-free codecs. While I am 100% fine going the mplayer/ugly/ffmpeg route personally, that is not an option for companies or aunt millie. I see this move by Fluendo as sort of a toe dip. If it gains enough traction with users and enough acceptance from the Open Source community, it will be a bit of an evolutionary step in the process. This is a complicated issue and I've left some of my opinion and ideas out of it for now – what do you think?
–jeremy
, , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Open Source

The economic impact of open source on Europe

January 16, 2007 Leave a comment

Matt has some summary information on the report I mentioned here. Here are a few snippets from his post:
Rishab Aiyer Ghosh and UNU-Merit put together this insightful report on the impact of FLOSS (an unfortunate acronym for free/libre open source software) on the European economy. It was financed by the European Commission's Directorate General for Enterprise and Industry.
Why does it matter? The paper starts by suggesting that the information economy accounts for ~10% of the GDP of most developed nations, and more than 50% of their economic growth. Think about that. If even remotely true, it means that the kind of IT we espouse matters a great deal. It's fundamental to our future economic growth. Do we want closed or open economies? I think the answer to that is obvious.
There are a couple of observation made in the post that I agree with. While the study points out the F/LOSS adoption is higher in the EU than it is in the US, commercial adoption is almost certainly higher in the US. The post covers some additional top level highlights, such as % of code contributed by individuals vs. firms vs. institutions, the direct impact of open source on the European economy, innovation, % of software developers in the U.S employed by proprietary packaged software firms (it's lower than you guessed) and more. The conclusion:
So what does this mean for Europe? The report challenges us with the following scenarios:
Europe faces three scenarios:
CLOSED, where existing business models are entrenched through legal and technical regulation, favouring a passive consumer model over new businesses supporting active participation in an information society of “prosumers”;
GENERIC, where current mixed policies lead to a gradual growth of FLOSS while many of the opportunities it presents are missed;
VOLUNTARY, where policies and the market develop to recognise and utilise the potential of FLOSS and similar collaborative models of creativity to harness the full power of active citizens in the information society.
I'm looking forward to reading the entire report even more now. Just have to make some time.
–jeremy

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Open Source

← Older posts

Newer posts →